Cézanne Charlebois

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its human rights application as untimely.

The original application alleged that the deceased employee committed suicide due to workplace harassment and failure to accommodate her mental illness.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely re-argued its case and failed to present new determinative evidence or establish that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal also noted its concern that the applicant's counsel had recorded the original teleconference hearing and submitted a transcript without the Tribunal's permission.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability more than two years after the deceased employee resigned and subsequently committed suicide.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient information within the one-year limitation period to file an application, as evidenced by communications with a former colleague and the filing of a WSIB claim based on similar allegations.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex after she was allegedly assaulted and threatened by a customer at her workplace.

She claimed the police and her employer failed to take her allegations seriously.

The respondent employer requested the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB appeal regarding whether a traumatic event actually occurred.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the issues before the WSIB and the Tribunal, and ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB appeal process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment resulting in disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had a concurrent proceeding before the WSIB dealing with the same facts and issues.

The respondents supported the deferral, while the applicant provided no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact and outcomes between the two proceedings.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that it had retained new counsel who was unavailable during the week of the hearing.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent's retention of unavailable counsel did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against one respondent, Black & MacDonald, because the events occurred more than one year prior to filing.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to a fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal held that fear of reprisal does not generally amount to a good faith basis for delay, especially since the applicant had pursued a WSIB claim during the same period.

The application against Black & MacDonald was dismissed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for March 16, 2011.

The personal respondent submitted that the Notice of Hearing was sent to an incorrect address and was only received on February 16, 2011, at which point he immediately advised the Tribunal that he would be out of the country on the scheduled date.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the incorrect address and the respondent's prompt notification constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The adjournment request was granted.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because she had recently retained counsel who required more time to prepare.

The corporate respondent also requested a production order against two third parties.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the late retention of counsel was within the applicant's control and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also declined to issue a production order against the third parties, directing the corporate respondent to use the Tribunal's summons process instead.